“Operation Payback” attacks to go on until “we stop being angry”

Digital attacks on anti-piracy groups around the world are being conducted in …

The distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against anti-piracy websites have gone on for a week now, with the lawyers behind the "US Copyright Group" being the latest target. And the anonymous Internet users behind "Operation Payback" aren't done acting out; in an interview yesterday with the security experts at Panda Labs, one of the organizers said that Anonymous' attacks will continue "until we stop being angry." Judging from the list of things that make him (?) angry, this could take a while.

The law firm of Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver was one of the newest targets of the attacks, organized a week ago to take down antipiracy organization around the world. Already hit: the RIAA (US), BPI (UK), MPAA (US), AFACT (Australia), BREIN (Netherlands), Aiplex (India), and Websheriff (UK). One of the smaller sites actually yielded the biggest bounty; the UK "P2P settlement letter factory" ACS Law gave up several hundred megabytes of private e-mails after being taken offline by the attack.

The organizers of Operation Payback view themselves as anarchists with a strong moral streak. In their initial attack announcement, they claimed that anarchists had already "succeeded en-masse in distributing content to the poor, the underprivileged, the restricted. The most popular pirates are the chinese, whose content filters restrict a vast amount of content from them. The second most popular, the poor, who cannot afford things like college books or entertainment."

These self-styled Robin Hoods are "strongly motivated to do what we can to fight back against things which are morally questionable," which means that they are now launching DDoS attacks in favor of piracy. "Sharing information" is the new morality—"information" in this case apparently including films like Get Him to the Greek, currently the top movie download on The Pirate Bay.

Operation Payback is the rage of those who need more attention. "What do we have to do to be heard?" asks the original call to action. "To be taken seriously? Do we have to take to the streets, throwing molotovs, raiding offices of those we oppose? Realize, you are forcing our hand by ignoring us. You forced us to DDoS when you ignored the people, ATTACKED the people, LIED TO THE PEOPLE! You are forcing us to take more drastic action as you ignore us, THE PEOPLE, now."

And the rage will continue until the perpetrators feel less angry about the "rich and powerful corporations" who run the world. "In a world where our voice is ignored, we feel we have no choice but to revert to direct action."

Or, as an attack organizer put it last week, "We are seeking to change our way of life OUTSIDE the 'basement' we are trapped in. This is just the beginning. This is only the start."

212 Reader Comments

I completely support them in this. For too long now, copyright 'reform' has been the sole domain of entertainment industry lobbyists and weak-minded politicians who just cave to everything.

You want to talk about rage? Look at the mass lawsuits against alleged P2P users -- despite constant lobbying, enactment of useless, pointless and Draconian laws like the DMCA -- they're still losing. The lawsuits are the rage response -- look at that guy who runs the Far Cry production company. Rage city.

Since this all started, I've advocated that the general population adopt a stance on this that is the polar opposite of the entertainment industry. If they are pushing for laws that prevent us from copying, we should push for laws that allow all copying. Standard negotiation tactic -- meet somewhere in the middle. To me, the 4chan attacks are no more deplorable than the industry's continued harassment of innocent P2P users.

Fact: The copyright laws are egregiously unbalanced in the favor of IP owners. The technical reality is that the old business models are defunct and these lawsuits are the dying throes of an industry which refuses to adapt to the situation in which they find themselves. If they don't like the situation, they are more than free to close their doors and go home. Someone new with fresh ideas will take their place, and will be creative enough to find a model that does work.

I believe in fair use. The problem is, the fair use I believe in isn't what the IP owners believe in. They've demonstrated time and time again that they support it in name only. To me, fair use means that individual non-commercial copying is permissible. This is the fair use that has been on the law books in my country for years and it hasn't killed the music, movie or software business.

Wow, what a fantastic way to delegitimize the efforts of actually helpful groups...

Throwing all that (ignorant) idealism behind the attack with quotes like those, they're just encouraging judges to side with USCG and their ilk.

Yes i'm certain that the judges will hear of this calculated and organized effort by online provocateurs and react with nothing less than the stiffest rebukes and fines for the bewildered parents and grandparents that comprise the defendant pool.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

I agree but this method used is flawed. It will backfire. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnot_Gang"In the aftermath of the collapse of the Bonnot Gang, French authorities used the threat of anarchist violence as the pretext for a substantial expansion in law enforcement power."

This would be my view on the most-likely end result. But then, that result would just feed the flames that started this reaction in the first place. We're one-stepping our way to a very bad ending.

I completely support them in this. For too long now, copyright 'reform' has been the sole domain of entertainment industry lobbyists and weak-minded politicians who just cave to everything.

You want to talk about rage? Look at the mass lawsuits against alleged P2P users -- despite constant lobbying, enactment of useless, pointless and Draconian laws like the DMCA -- they're still losing. The lawsuits are the rage response -- look at that guy who runs the Far Cry production company. Rage city.

Since this all started, I've advocated that the general population adopt a stance on this that is the polar opposite of the entertainment industry. If they are pushing for laws that prevent us from copying, we should push for laws that allow all copying. Standard negotiation tactic -- meet somewhere in the middle. To me, the 4chan attacks are no more deplorable than the industry's continued harassment of innocent P2P users.

Fact: The copyright laws are egregiously unbalanced in the favor of IP owners. The technical reality is that the old business models are defunct and these lawsuits are the dying throes of an industry which refuses to adapt to the situation in which they find themselves. If they don't like the situation, they are more than free to close their doors and go home. Someone new with fresh ideas will take their place, and will be creative enough to find a model that does work.

I believe in fair use. The problem is, the fair use I believe in isn't what the IP owners believe in. They've demonstrated time and time again that they support it in name only. To me, fair use means that individual non-commercial copying is permissible. This is the fair use that has been on the law books in my country for years and it hasn't killed the music, movie or software business.

Yes as long as you already purchased the work.

But expecting it to be okay to make copies of something you never paid for is not good. Because at that point the industry is competing with free with their own products.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

"But if they're under the assumption that entertainment is some kind of inalienable right, they're not helping anyone."They are trying to overturn copyright law because it has gotten out of control, the point is nobody is listening to them when they say this. So they decided to make some waves, now they have your attention.

Did you know torrent sites are not inherently illegal? or morally wrong?

Of course torrent sites are not inherently illegal/wrong. I never claimed that they were. But you and I both know better than to believe that the Pirate Bay is just distributing Linux ISOs all day long.

"I'd toss in the French Revolution, too." I wouldn't. What did it fix exactly? They've had 4 'republics', a couple dictators and lost both world wars. Yes, technically, they were on the winning side each time, but still, they went in as a top military and colonial power and ended up as the world's upscale grocery boutique. And we had to bail their asses out twice. Three times if you count Nam.

I completely support them in this. For too long now, copyright 'reform' has been the sole domain of entertainment industry lobbyists and weak-minded politicians who just cave to everything.

You want to talk about rage? Look at the mass lawsuits against alleged P2P users -- despite constant lobbying, enactment of useless, pointless and Draconian laws like the DMCA -- they're still losing. The lawsuits are the rage response -- look at that guy who runs the Far Cry production company. Rage city.

Since this all started, I've advocated that the general population adopt a stance on this that is the polar opposite of the entertainment industry. If they are pushing for laws that prevent us from copying, we should push for laws that allow all copying. Standard negotiation tactic -- meet somewhere in the middle. To me, the 4chan attacks are no more deplorable than the industry's continued harassment of innocent P2P users.

Fact: The copyright laws are egregiously unbalanced in the favor of IP owners. The technical reality is that the old business models are defunct and these lawsuits are the dying throes of an industry which refuses to adapt to the situation in which they find themselves. If they don't like the situation, they are more than free to close their doors and go home. Someone new with fresh ideas will take their place, and will be creative enough to find a model that does work.

I believe in fair use. The problem is, the fair use I believe in isn't what the IP owners believe in. They've demonstrated time and time again that they support it in name only. To me, fair use means that individual non-commercial copying is permissible. This is the fair use that has been on the law books in my country for years and it hasn't killed the music, movie or software business.

Yes as long as you already purchased the work.

But expecting it to be okay to make copies of something you never paid for is not good. Because at that point the industry is competing with free with their own products.

The best possible solution is DRM; there are few issues here and there but in general it works surprisingly good. While I applaud Apple's efforts for selling content, they should have kept the DRM on their songs. DRM protects the companies from others stealing their work while give real customers a chance to enjoy what they bought

I for one support what Anonymous is doing here. They are right about a lot of things. The corporations and various entities in league with them in the Entertainment businesses have taken to attacking their customers, and it's gone on for well over 20 years now.

They've had it coming to them all along, and I am glad that Anonymous is leading the charge. While many Anons can be said to be of questionable moral fortitude in other areas, when it comes to the important things they always are fighting for great justice.

It doesn't help the cause at all who simply want fair use for legit reasons.

I can guarantee you that most of 4chan is pissed not because they feel they can't transfer their legally bought DVD's to another format.

They're pissed because the studios dare try and stop blatant pirate sites. Now I don't agree with the massive lawsuit in question on the doe's. But I don't see why people are getting pissed when the studios try taking down sites like TPB. And no matter what method they turn to whether its suing the enablers or suing the downloaders people get pissed off. You can't expect them to just sit there and let it happen it doesn't work that way.

It's this kind of stuff that sets us back and gets us no where. When has violence and rage ever fixed anything. Tell me how well have the G summit riots worked out in the all the years that they have happened? Shit gets broken and the outcome doesn't change.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

Not until ObamaCare. I think that's what makes it unconstitutional, but the supremes don't always rule rationally.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

You mean like a trial by jury? Preventing this sort of thing you describe is exactly the purpose of the entire criminal justice system. But you're right, responding by doing something that's actually illegal instead of defending your innocence in court sounds like a great idea.

There are enough people with enough power on the internet that have been pissed off about this to actually do something. Legal or not, they are being heard. While I don't necessarily agree that 'might makes right' in any sense, it is also the way of things in nature and society. A group is challenging that power and while their efforts seem largely in vain at current, if enough people are angry they will be heard and they will enact change.

How do you think the Tea Party candidates are getting so much love right now? You can create any crazy whack job theories you like, but the bottom line is the independents felt the Democrats didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

In which case you go to court over it, and counter-sue for damages and lawyer fees.... Having a lawyer in the family I can honestly say they would eat something like this up as going against the **AA they know they can jack up their hourly wages tremendously and get it out of them. Actually I kind of wish they would fabricate "evidence" against me and attempt to sue me so I could do that very thing, I could use a nice fat retirement plan.

But seriously it is not hard to defend against if your innocent. Here is all of the computers in my house please feel free to scan the hard-drives in any way possible and see if such an item was ever even on there (with my own "expert" standing over their shoulder of course to double check everything). If not they have no grounds to stand on and you get a ton of money out of them for damages. Problem is everyone who tries to take them to court for the most part actually is guilty of what they are being accused of.

Quote:

Right or wrong is irrelevant and objective.

There are enough people with enough power on the internet that have been pissed off about this to actually do something. Legal or not, they are being heard. While I don't necessarily agree that 'might makes right' in any sense, it is also the way of things in nature and society. A group is challenging that power and while their efforts seem largely in vain at current, if enough people are angry they will be heard and they will enact change.

How do you think the Tea Party candidates are getting so much love right now? You can create any crazy whack job theories you like, but the bottom line is the independents felt the Democrats didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Slight difference, the Tea Party people aren't breaking the law, these guys are. Right and wrong is completely relevant. In a representative society you do not break the law to create change, you work within the system. If you don't do that then you have nothing but Anarchy which is good for no one. These are a bunch of yahoos with no life, likely no jobs, just trying to get things for free and make some waves because they can. No different than the college student war protesters who have their tuition paid by mommy and daddy that just want to do something to feel important (not denigrating war protestors here, I actually support them, just not the spoiled college brat ones), or the clusters of unemployeed people I see on the side of the road up here all the time holding signs that say "Vote for a right to a job"... Maybe if they actually went out and GOT a job instead of standing outside of their apartment complex all day people might actually listen to them (and it is not that there are no jobs here, our state has actually not been that impacted by the recession and has very low unemployment with a ton of work available to those actually looking for it).

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

That's not true

It is true. It's what the USCG is doing right now. There is nothing stopping them from sending you - and I mean you, personally - a letter saying that you've infringed someone's copyright, and you can either settle now for $1,500 or defend yourself in court.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

You mean like a trial by jury? Preventing this sort of thing you describe is exactly the purpose of the entire criminal justice system. But you're right, responding by doing something that's actually illegal instead of defending your innocence in court sounds like a great idea.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

I completely support them in this. For too long now, copyright 'reform' has been the sole domain of entertainment industry lobbyists and weak-minded politicians who just cave to everything.

You want to talk about rage? Look at the mass lawsuits against alleged P2P users -- despite constant lobbying, enactment of useless, pointless and Draconian laws like the DMCA -- they're still losing. The lawsuits are the rage response -- look at that guy who runs the Far Cry production company. Rage city.

Since this all started, I've advocated that the general population adopt a stance on this that is the polar opposite of the entertainment industry. If they are pushing for laws that prevent us from copying, we should push for laws that allow all copying. Standard negotiation tactic -- meet somewhere in the middle. To me, the 4chan attacks are no more deplorable than the industry's continued harassment of innocent P2P users.

Fact: The copyright laws are egregiously unbalanced in the favor of IP owners. The technical reality is that the old business models are defunct and these lawsuits are the dying throes of an industry which refuses to adapt to the situation in which they find themselves. If they don't like the situation, they are more than free to close their doors and go home. Someone new with fresh ideas will take their place, and will be creative enough to find a model that does work.

I believe in fair use. The problem is, the fair use I believe in isn't what the IP owners believe in. They've demonstrated time and time again that they support it in name only. To me, fair use means that individual non-commercial copying is permissible. This is the fair use that has been on the law books in my country for years and it hasn't killed the music, movie or software business.

I don't know what country you're from. In the US, the constitution carves out IP:"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

nothing about fair use there, and "limited time" has been continually reinterpreted as to exactly what period that may be. The point is, the IP owners have the constitution on their side, so more or less end of story in the US.

Fair use is a *doctrine*, and simply guides the courts as to reasonable exceptions that should not be prosecutable. In this country, that most certainly does NOT include your definition. Section 107 of the copyright law sets out fair use. From the US copyright office site:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

even if you don't buy their crap, and don't pirate it either, there's nothing stopping them from fabricating "evidence" that you pirated it and demanding that you pay them thousands of dollars or they'll sue you for millions of dollars

In which case you go to court over it, and counter-sue for damages and lawyer fees.... Having a lawyer in the family I can honestly say they would eat something like this up as going against the **AA they know they can jack up their hourly wages tremendously and get it out of them. Actually I kind of wish they would fabricate "evidence" against me and attempt to sue me so I could do that very thing, I could use a nice fat retirement plan.

But seriously it is not hard to defend against if your innocent. Here is all of the computers in my house please feel free to scan the hard-drives in any way possible and see if such an item was ever even on there (with my own "expert" standing over their shoulder of course to double check everything). If not they have no grounds to stand on and you get a ton of money out of them for damages. Problem is everyone who tries to take them to court for the most part actually is guilty of what they are being accused of.

Problem is tens of thousands of parents showing up to court with no idea why they are there save for some faint inkling little billy may have snuck onto the internet at night. If i didn't know better i'd suspect attorney collusion on all sides. Even small measures of justice aren't cheap.

Sounds like bunch of angry cummunist hippies who are upset why they cant download movies for free and pay nothing for music while surfing on their pirated OS all while because they are too lazy and stupid to make money so they can afford their stuff

That's why DRM is needed to protect the rights of media publishers and software developersAnarchism and hipsters are a disease and must be dealt with

In which case you go to court over it, and counter-sue for damages and lawyer fees.... Having a lawyer in the family I can honestly say they would eat something like this up as going against the **AA they know they can jack up their hourly wages tremendously and get it out of them. Actually I kind of wish they would fabricate "evidence" against me and attempt to sue me so I could do that very thing, I could use a nice fat retirement plan.

But seriously it is not hard to defend against if your innocent. Here is all of the computers in my house please feel free to scan the hard-drives in any way possible and see if such an item was ever even on there (with my own "expert" standing over their shoulder of course to double check everything). If not they have no grounds to stand on and you get a ton of money out of them for damages. Problem is everyone who tries to take them to court for the most part actually is guilty of what they are being accused of.

Problem is tens of thousands of parents showing up to court with no idea why they are there save for some faint inkling little billy may have snuck onto the internet at night. If i didn't know better i'd suspect attorney collusion on all sides. Even small measures of justice aren't cheap.

Well guess what, if Little Billy is responsible for doing it and he is a minor then YES his parents are responsible for his actions. Being his parents it is their responsibility to control what he can or cannot do, and the funny thing is it is only recently that we've drifted from that thought pattern. I remember growing up in the 70's and 80's if I did something wrong at school my parents were called, and around my father was not where I wanted to be when he got home as he would punish me 10x worse than the school did just because of the embarassment I caused and because he understood he was responsible for my actions.

I also remember hacking and bringing down a local BBS here in town back when I was a kid (one of the games allowed you overflow the memory buffer and it would drop you to the OS level) and the owner called my house when I wasn't there and talked to my father. He tanned my hide, grounded me literally for a year (only being allowed to come out of your room for school and chores, and having your computer and TV locked away for a year sucks) and taught me a lesson I would never forget. Unfortunatly parents don't think that way anymore as "Little Billy" can do no wrong in their eyes. That's not a problem with the court system, that's a problem with parents not being friggin parents and taking their responsibilities seriously. As far as I am concerned until the point Little Billy turns 18 any actions he takes are as if you did those actions as his personality, morals, etc. are your responsibility to shape, not society's. And if the child fails in those things then it is because you failed as a parent (perfect example being the Columbine shooters who had gun parts sitting around their rooms for days, showed all the classic signs of having problems, but whose parents did nothing to prevent it because they were "too busy" to even look in on them).

And yes I do believe parents should be punished for the actions of their child if there was an expectation the parents could have done anything to prevent it. Don't want Little Billy pirating movies then lock down the computer, put it in a public space, track what they do on it, and limit their time on it. Heck I'm sure you can find the old style keyed cases that allows you to lock it from powering on, use that.

Sounds like bunch of angry cummunist hippies who are upset why they cant download movies for free and pay nothing for music while surfing on their pirated OS all while because they are too lazy and stupid to make money so they can afford their stuff

That's why DRM is needed to protect the rights of media publishers and software developersAnarchism and hipsters are a disease and must be dealt with

1) I'm pretty sure if they're capable of launching these attacks, they're not "too lazy and stupid to make money". They obviously have a very valuable skill set and probably have legitimate reasons for their beliefs (or at least they aren't doing it out of laziness or greed).

2) If DRM is needed, it should be modified to comply with fair use. If I buy a CD, I should be able to play that CD on the platform of my choice--not just those approved by Company X. Until a good DRM scheme is adopted, expect completely moral and ethical DRM-breaking. So far, all DRM schemes have violated consumer rights so your statement is only saying the rights of some people should be protected (perhaps its coincidence that the group whose rights you would protect is also the group with the most money per capita?), but not others.

Sounds like bunch of angry cummunist hippies who are upset why they cant download movies for free and pay nothing for music while surfing on their pirated OS all while because they are too lazy and stupid to make money so they can afford their stuff

That's why DRM is needed to protect the rights of media publishers and software developersAnarchism and hipsters are a disease and must be dealt with

If everybody who ever claimed the moral high ground about pirating something just refused to buy and didn't pirate it, we'd have a lot less of this obnoxious DRM.

Exactly! Boycotts are a very effective tool against abuse of power. (Rosa Parks anyone?) A boycott of audio, video, movies, games would be the end of the exorbitant prices if the boycott could be sustained for a month but I guess the anti-pirates are too busy from standing in line to get their next movie or ibox. Apparently the standing in line takes so much time that all they can do is to start DDOS attacks when they're not in line. Too bad they can't practice self denial for a month.

I'm also curious about college textbooks costing too much. While it is true that the prices for such generally limited editions is high, it is generally much smaller than the tuition cost. Are we hearing from a yuppie whose parents pay the tuition while he(?) has to buy books from his summer earnings?

Iit's convenient that "the poor" all have computers and broadband access. If we look at the responses to RIAA lawsuits, it appears to be mostly 14-17 year olds downloading movies and music, who may be a disadvantaged group (I mean, in MA they have to wear bicycle helmets and can't text while driving, unlike their voting compatriots), but are hardly the moral cause these folks are making it out to be.

4Chan: when privileged youth find an outlet for their amorphous rage. I mean, back in my day we just listened to 2Pac.

Nope. I'm just responding to Adam's assertion "When has violence and rage ever fixed anything?" Wars are violent, but they fixed some issues that needed fixing.

Not you, Aedilis, but others should really look into the tactics of the Sons of Liberty before claiming that violence, disobeying law, and anarchism don't resolve anything. Especially since the US ignored 100% of IP law when it was a baby after a very violent military revolution.

if you are not happy with the rules and regulations regarding a product don't buy it thenIts not like big corporations are forcing people to buy their stuff

The people about whom you are complaining are following your advice. They aren't buying it.

I mean, if you think about it this way, the companies really have nothing to lose from piracy because pirates wouldn't pay full price for the content in the first place so them getting it for free is only good for the company in terms of deeper market penetration and product exposure. If the content holders were smart, they would lower the prices on their merchandise to an agreeable price so the 'pirates' would pay for it and the content companies would get product exposure. They'd be getting paid for their own products' advertisements!

And last I checked when those facts were shown the cases were dropped and everyone has a good laugh at their idiocy.

The point is that the same mistakes that lead them to sue those people could lead them to sue innocent people who nevertheless own a computer with Limewire installed on it, say. At that point, it becomes wicked expensive to prove your innocence, if you even could. Far cheaper just to settle.

Of course torrent sites are not inherently illegal/wrong. I never claimed that they were. But you and I both know better than to believe that the Pirate Bay is just distributing Linux ISOs all day long.

Certainly, but not all "entertainment" is copyright protected. And Linux distros are not the only thing you can download for free, legally. One very important point is legitimate software producers are using the tech to distribute updates via bit torrent using your internet connection instead of paying for large upload pipes. Also this tech is used by small time producers or everything* to get there name out, and "make it big".

Point is some big players use it to there advantage, and then take advantage of our legal system to reap more benefits too.

"I'd toss in the French Revolution, too." I wouldn't. What did it fix exactly? They've had 4 'republics', a couple dictators and lost both world wars. Yes, technically, they were on the winning side each time, but still, they went in as a top military and colonial power and ended up as the world's upscale grocery boutique. And we had to bail their asses out twice. Three times if you count Nam.

And, oh yeah, these guys should just pay for Netflix.

If we're going to look at everything up until today, then the US revolution didn't accomplish much either since we're back to one religion trying to suppress another and people's rights being trampled by the wealthy and the corporations.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon not long after which made them, arguably, the most powerful military in Europe for its time. It also gave them a Constitution (just as the US's did) and a form of democracy, as well as (at the time) pulled them out from under a corrupt elite that didn't give two shakes about the disenfranchised and poor.

I will grant your point that, looking at today's results, it's hard to see where either of our country's got very far.

I'm also curious about college textbooks costing too much. While it is true that the prices for such generally limited editions is high, it is generally much smaller than the tuition cost. Are we hearing from a yuppie whose parents pay the tuition while he(?) has to buy books from his summer earnings?

As I understand it, that's mainly a problem of publishers leaving book prices as "not yet determined" until it's too late in the year for professors to change their mind about what book will be used for their class. Most professors are forced to pick books without any idea how much they cost. I think a few states are trying to leverage their state funded universities against publishers who do this to try and control text book costs. Don't recall the details of that though.